The Castle Report – The evidence in full.

`

 

This is every word of the evidence given by witnesses to the alleged racist incident at Nottingham Castle.  The evidence was given, to the external independent inquiry, commissioned by the Trustees of Nottingham Castle and is extracted directly from their report dated 24^th January 2022

It exposes a number of important points about the allegations made against the Castle employees, the nature of the incident itself and what the Castle employees faced in trying to deal with the incident.  These points include:

 

 

1. That it was unforgivable and disgraceful for the parents of the children, both black and white, to carry on an angry aggressive shouting match with threats and accusations and counter accusations, in front of the children.   The very essence of safeguarding requires that children should be protected and shielded from witnessing such scenes.

 

2. That the allegations that continue to be made by Mrs. Panya Banjoko that the Castle staff were unsympathetic to the alleged racial incident and unconcerned about the racial incident and lacked empathy are, in the light of the evidence recounted in the report, deliberately constructed lies

 

3. The allegation that Mrs Panya Banjoko was “kettled” by Castle security staff is, in the light of the evidence in the report, a further deliberately constructed lie.

 

4. That the fact that Castle employees had either not read the Castle’s policies and procedures and/or had not been trained to handle an incident such as occurred, is as much the fault of the previous Chief Executive Officer, who was sacked four days prior to the alleged racial incident, as it is of the Trustees.

 

 

5. That if anyone is required to apologise in respect of the alleged incident it is Panya Banjoko who should apologize to the Castle Employees for smearing them with allegations of racism and to the parents of the 8-year-old child with learning difficulties that Mrs. Banjoko chased out of the castle grounds.

 

 

 

THE REPORT

 

Summary of Witness Interviews

Status of Interviews

The Authors told the interviewees what the purpose of the interview was, namely, an independent investigation into the incident that occurred on 17th August 2021, which had triggered a written complaint.

Each interviewee attended the investigatory interviews on their own. Interviewees were not offered the right to be accompanied, nor did any of them ask to be accompanied.

Interviewees were thanked for their co-operation and contribution.

Summary of interview with Witness A on 30th November 2021 at 1pm

1. Witness A (who was the most senior person ‘on site’ on the day of the incident) did not know what she was walking into when she responded to the Code Purple call for assistance. (Code Purple is an ‘emergency call’) Witness A met Witness G upon route to the Visitors Centre but cannot exactly recall what Witness G told her. Witness A believes it is something along the lines of “this little girl has been called a black girl”. She thinks she may have said something about being hurt but does not remember any details. Witness A left Witness G to attend to the girl as she was still responding to the Code Purple request for help at the Visitors Centre.
2. At the Visitors Centre Witness A met Witness D, who was stood a few yards away from the Visitors Centre. Witness D spoke to Witness A, but Witness A did not understand what he was saying or what he meant at the time of her arrival.
3. Witness A first met a lady in a wheelchair and a young man stood beside her. This couple reported that the lady in the wheelchair had been kicked and wished to file a complaint. They filled in an incident report. Upon completion of completing the incident book the Duty Manager, Witness F, let them leave the Visitor Centre upon the instruction of Witness A. Witness A stated that she had not understood at this point that there was another incident that involved another in the same two families.
4. Upon looking at the CCTV later Witness A believes this was not a purposeful kick, but rather an attempt to quickly pass the wheelchair by Panya’s daughter. Upon leaving the Visitor Centre, Witness A could hear Panya’s daughter shouting in front of 4/5 staff about a family that shouldn’t be allowed to leave. Witness A tried to explain to Panya’s daughter that staff do not prevent customers from leaving.
5. Witness A walked over to Panya, (who was on the phone, possible to Josh O). Witness A stated that Panya shouted at her about the family involved in the incident in the Visitors Centre and the playground, in that they should have been stopped leaving NC, as they were involved in an incident in the playground where her granddaughter had been ‘racially abused’. As Panya and her daughter were shouting at her, Witness A asked her ‘not to be so aggressive’. This comment resulted in Panya’s temper increasing and it commenced both Panya and her daughter questioning Witness A (whilst filming her) about NC’s Safeguarding Policy (Appendix A), policies on racist attacks, why the Rebellion Gallery did not exhibit Hyson Green and stating that it was her intention to contact numerous media outlets to “bring you down”.
6. Witness A admitted that she felt out of her depth when being asked such questions and stated she felt she would benefit from Race Relations training. After 10 to 15 minutes of this debate, Witness A asked if they would like the Police to be called. Panya said she did; Witness A called 999. The police logged the matter with two incident numbers: 406/17082021 and 469/17082021.
7. Witness A has not read the Safeguarding Policy and reported that there had been some staff leavers with these responsibilities.
8. Witness A stated that she felt stressed that week due to Sarah leaving and feeling vulnerable and unsupported and this may have contributed to her anxiety facing her first Code Purple event.

Summary of interview with Witness B on 3rd December 2021 at 10am

9. Witness B is a Security Officer at NC, and he has been employed (by Nottingham Council) since 1 March 2021. He has been a Security Officer for 14 years. Since he has been at NC, he has not received any training on conflict situations or on equality and diversity.
10. On 17th August 2021, he was working 7am – 7pm and it was one of the busiest days of the year, with circa 1000 visitors that day. He first became involved when he received a call on the radio of ‘code purple’ (code for emergency). Witness B was about 100m from the Visitor Centre, so he ran towards it and noticed Witness H on the floor. She told Witness B “I can’t deal with this” and she pointed him towards the doors. Witness B went through the doors and saw a black lady holding a child and shouting at a white female in a wheelchair saying “get out of my way” – she was repeating this. Witness B said to the black lady “excuse me, please can you calm down” – she ignored Witness B; did not look at him and just carried on shouting at the lady in the wheelchair.
11. Witness B said his first instinct was these two ladies had bumped into each other and he asked the black lady to calm down to and to tell him what had happened, but she did not listen to him and continued shouting at the lady in the wheelchair. Witness B then said the black lady stepped over the leg of the woman in the wheelchair and walked towards another lady, whom he now understands, was Panya. Witness B then recognized Panya as he had seen her previously at NC, recognizing her from the exhibition she had been involved in. The shouting continued for around 5 minutes.
12. Witness B said the lady in the wheelchair kept telling the other lady that she was not in her way and did not do anything. Witness B said the lady in the wheelchair was not in the way, and the other lady could have used the other doors to get past. However, the lady stepped over the woman in the wheelchair and walked towards the ticket office to meet another woman, whom Witness B now understands was her Mum, Panya.
13. At the time when this lady was speaking to the lady in the wheelchair, she was leaning down towards her and Witness B asked her to “step back and calm down”, but the lady ignored her. When the lady eventually stood up and walked towards (Panya), the lady in the wheelchair said to Witness B “did you see that? She kicked me” to which Witness B replied “I did not see that”. He then said the lady in the wheelchair started crying and Witness B tried to calm her down. He said he could not leave her like that, so stayed with her for 2/3 minutes, but at the same time, looking at (Panya) and her daughter as they were shouting at Witness D, saying “you have let these people go; you did not stop them.”
14. Witness B then said Witness F and Witness A then entered the area and asked Witness B what had happened, to which Witness B said he did not know; he was trying to find out and calm the lady in the wheelchair down. Witness B then said Witness A went over to Panya and her daughter, to which Witness B said he could hear Panya shouting at Witness A saying “you have let the perpetrator go” – she used this word a lot. Witness B upon hearing this word did not know who he should ‘stop’.
15. Witness B eventually left the lady in the wheelchair and walked over to Witness A who was talking to Panya and her daughter – the shouting was continuing. Panya was telling Witness A her staff and security had not done anything – Witness B said upon hearing this, it made him feel useless and small.
16. Witness B said he could not intervene as Panya was shouting at Witness A and Witness D and both were trying to calm her down but were unable to do so – this went on for approximately 10 minutes. Witness B then said everyone started to walk towards the open space, which was a roped off area, and the shouting continued with references to what had not been done. Witness B heard Witness A tell Panya to “calm down” as she was “aggressive”. Witness B said Panya did not react well to this comment and she told Witness A that her granddaughter had been racially abused and physically assaulted.
17. Witness B then asked Panya if she wanted the police to be called which Panya agreed to and Witness A dialled 999 from Witness B’s mobile phone. Witness B then said Panya told everyone that she was going to record and share on social media. Witness B heard Panya tell Witness A that ‘she knew a lot of people and that she could get a lot of protesters at the gate tomorrow’. Witness B could see Panya making a recording on her phone, but at the time Witness B was just standing by.
18. Witness B then said Panya and her daughter left the main gate about 5-10 minutes later and then the police telephoned him on 18th August 2021 asking to speak to Witness A, but as he was taking the call, police officers were walking towards him, and he directed them to Witness A.
19. Witness B said that after Panya had left, Witness D told him the incident had occurred in the playground which tiggered everything.

Summary of interview with Witness C on 7th December 2021 at 11am

20. Upon hearing the call for help at the Visitors Centre, Witness C went to the centre and upon route came across Witness G who was with a young girl aged approximately 11/12. Witness G told Witness C that she had been told by the young girl that she had been called a ‘black girl’ and had been assaulted. Witness C confirmed these were Witness G’s words and not the young girls. The young girl did not speak to Witness C about the incident.
21. Witness C tried to show empathy by apologising to the young girl and her aunt and offered a private space for them to go.
22. Upon arriving in the Visitor Centre Witness C saw a lady in a wheelchair writing a statement in a book. When this lady informed her, she had been kicked by a member of the young girl’s family. Witness C offered her sympathies.
23. Witness C describes the scene in the Visitor Centre as chaotic and was not able to work out who in the centre belonged to which of the two families or what had transpired. Witness C felt she could do nothing but show empathy and apologise for what had happened to both families.
24. Witness C has not read the Safeguarding Policy and believes she would benefit from some training in crisis handling. She also feels there is a need for extra staff with appropriate skills to patrol the castle.

Summary of interview with Witness D on 7th December 2021 at 12.30 pm

25. Witness D reports he saw two women (Panya and her daughter, the young girl’s aunt), chasing another small girl through the Visitors Centre. Panya was also shouting at the young girl. This young girl was approximately 8 to 10 years old, who was distressed and crying. As Witness D thought this was a strange sight to see, he went to Panya to ask if he could help and asked what was happening.
26. Witness D states Panya did not respond to his questions but shouted at him, something along the lines of ‘get out of my way’. As Witness D believed Panya was going to grab the young girl she was trying to ‘run after’ Witness D said his natural instinct was to protect a child from harm and stepped in front of Panya to create a barrier between her and the child.
27. Upon questioning Witness D if he touched Panya in any way, or ‘kettled her’, he replied “no, I just stood in between the two of them to give the child some ‘breathing space’” as he did not know what was going on.
28. Following this, Panya followed the family to the exit whilst using her phone to take photos or a video. Witness D told Panya “I do not know what is going on, but you cannot take photos of children”. Panya replied, “I have tried to call security”. Then Panya and her daughter continued to chase the family to the exit, (whilst running into a lady in a wheelchair).

Summary of interview with Witness E on 7th December 2021 at 1 pm

29. The father of the girl being chased called Name offered, to complain that his daughter and mother of this child were being attacked by a member of staff. He was referring to Panya. He then gave his account of what he believed happened. i.e. The two young girls from each of the families were playing together in play area. They seem to get into a ‘tiff’ about something. Panya’s granddaughter allegedly said “do you know who we are”? The other daughter replied “black girls”. The father offered a reason for this, in that his daughter suffers from ADHD and ASD, therefore not realising such a comment can cause offence.
30. During the incident Josh Osoro (who was working at home on the day of the incident) called Name offered, to let her know Panya had called him to say racial abuse had occurred. Name offered’s reaction was to call Witness F the Duty Manager to go to the Visitors Centre. Name offered remained in the office to talk to the child’s father and update Josh Osoro on the phone, that the Duty Manager was heading to the Visitor Centre.
31. Name offered expressed concern that her team had become subject to criticism on social media and had received threats via direct messages on the shop Instagram account. This made some of the staff fearful of walking from work in their uniforms and upset about some of the social media comments, which are still occurring.

Summary of interview with Witness F on 7th December 2021 at 4 pm

32. Upon reaching the Visitor Centre it was not clear to anyone what was happening. In summary there was an upset lady in a wheelchair writing a statement as she complained she had been kicked. There was a young girl being restrained by her family as she was crying. Panya and her family were walking about outside, Panya using a phone either taking videos or picture.
33. Witness F reports there was no clear communication about the incident from any of the families involved. As Witness A was talking to Panya, Witness F collected the statements. Although Witness F believes there are policies and procedure to deal with customer incidents, she said it would have been more preferable to have an experienced leader to able to be the spokesperson on the day and deal with the social media quicker and for someone to take responsibility for the incident to prevent any escalation.

Summary of interview with Witness G on 8th December 2021 at 4 pm

34. Witness G was approached by two children looking for someone from security (one being Panya’s granddaughter). Panya granddaughter told Witness G someone had been racist by calling her nasty things and had been kicked by a young girl.
35. She did not seem physically hurt but she was upset. Witness G asked where her family were. The young girl replied her aunty was in a coffee shop. Witness G wondered why the girl had decided to come up the hill to the restaurant castle rather than down to the coffee shop where her family were and so decided to take her to where her family were. Witness G’s only concern was to get her safely to her family.

Summary of interview with Witness H on 10th December 2021 at 12.00pm

36. Witness H is Customer Services Team Leader at the Visitor Centre, a position she started in May 2021. She was present at the Castle on 17th August 2021 and just after 3pm, she was serving customers behind the till in the Visitor Centre, when two families came in screaming and shouting, saying there has an assault. Witness H grabbed the radio and went straight outside and called ‘code purple’ on the radio (urgent assistance required). Witness H said NC was very busy that day.
37. As she was walking outside, several families approached her (she thinks they saw what happened) but they were keen to leave, and so Witness H felt obliged to show them the way out, which then delayed her getting to the outside area.
38. By this time, Witness A and Witness F had arrived, and they were talking to both families, one of whom was inside the Visitor Centre, and the other just outside. Witness C (Marketing Manager) also came to help and was talking to the families.
39. Witness H noticed that one family who was with (what she now understands) their granddaughter with red hair was removed from the situation as she seemed to be getting distressed and upset so that family started to leave the Visitor Centre and started walking to the gate house and Witness H saw whom she now understands to be a lady called ‘Panya’ following her saying “don’t let her leave”.
40. After the event, Witness H viewed the CCTV but could not see anything to assist the investigation. She confirmed she had not received any ‘conflict training’ nor any training on equality and diversity.

Summary of interview with Witness I on 10 December 2021 at 2pm

41. Josh is the Community Engagement Manager at NC and has been with the organisation since January 2020. Prior to the incident that occurred on 17th August 2021, Josh had a working relationship with Panya and knew her from his dealings with her since March 2021, when he worked with her in setting up an exhibition at NC called “Don’t Blame the Blacks”. This was an exhibition that ran from 22 June 2021 – 22 August 2021. Josh was not involved in the incident other than speaking to various people on the telephone, including Panya.
42. On 17th August 2021, Josh was working from home when he received a call from Panya. She was crying and very distressed. He took the call during the incident itself – Josh was her main point of contact at NC (hence why Panya called him). Panya told Josh that her and her family had been attacked and racially abused but she did not go into detail. Panya told Josh another family had been abusive and racist, and she pleaded with Josh for help.
43. Josh confirmed he had made a statement on 17th August 2021. This summary amplifies what is already recorded in that statement.
44. After speaking with Panya, Josh called security at NC; Name offered, who was Duty Manager that day and Name offered, who was her ‘on site’ assistant. He advised them of the situation and asked for it to be dealt with urgently.
45. Josh spoke to Panya again, and by this time, she had moved, because he understands the other family (perpetrator) were on their way to the exit of NC, and Panya was following them. At the time, Panya was in tears and telling Josh that his colleagues were letting the family get away.
46. When Panya moved back inside, Josh could hear a lot of shouting in the background, and then heard Panya ‘yelp’ – saying one of the kids had tried to kick her. Panya was upset and then Josh heard one of his colleagues say to Panya ‘can you behave normally’ (Josh did not know who this was at the time, but later believes it was ‘Witness D’) Panya then told Josh she was being ‘kettled’ (kept in a corner) by staff. Panya’s response was ‘what is normal behaviour when your family has been racially abused. At this point, Josh said he detected a change in Panya’s behaviour – it turned to one of anger; but not aggressive.
47. Josh said he felt annoyed at this point as to how his colleagues had been handling this situation. Josh said staff had been recently trained on diversity and equality, but he had not attended.
48. Josh said that Panya spoke to him afterwards and felt that her family had learnt from this incident that racist behaviour is not accountable. Panya told Josh that she was going to speak to Witness A and Panya updated Josh after she had spoken with her. Panya said that Witness A had been quite defensive and not very sympathetic and that she thought Panya was being aggressive. Panya told Josh that she did not think the discussion with Witness A went very well. Josh said he had watched some social media footage of the incident (which he believes Panya’s daughter took) and in his opinion, it shows Witness A adopting a defensive approach; arms folded and did not demonstrate a sympathetic approach.
49. Panya told Josh that this situation would not have happened if Sarah (former Chief Executive) was still at NC. Josh mentioned different teams had received different training in the weeks leading up to when NC opened, but he felt it was ‘rushed’. He is not sure whether staff have read all the relevant policies or that staff felt prepared.
50. However, despite what Panya told Josh, she did not participate in the investigation, despite being invited to do so.

 

Commentary on the witness statements

What is quite remarkable is that the two adult black women refused to give any evidence to the Inquiry despite being invited to do so.

By declining the invitation they implicitly must accept the evidence tendered by the witnesses. They forfeit any opportunity to contest, deny, challenge or rebut their evidence.

The witness statements recount that the two adult black women were constantly recording the events in the Visitors centre, on their mobile phones.

These recordings should have been vital evidence in support of the complaints of Panya Banjoko. Even more critical, I say again, even more critical, would have been the soundtrack of the recordings, as they would either completely vindicate Panya Banjoko, or perhaps not.

You must judge for yourselves as to why the recordings were not submitted in evidence.

 

 

The full report, including findings based upon this evidence, and recommendations to the Castle Trustees in respect of training, procedures and practices, is in the possession of Panya Banjoko who, so far, has refused to publish the said report. In the light of the evidence set out here, that is probably quite understandable. What is less understandable is why the Castle have not published the report.